How a Second Amendment case at the Supreme Court is putting gun rights groups

“Politically speaking, that’s deeply unpopular.”
I suspect I probably fit into this category. Just Sayin.


Hmmm doesn’t state if he was ever convicted of anything. If so should still be in jail. If not, why not?


Two quotes from the article leapt out at me …

Quote #1

“Zackey Rahimi’s legal troubles began in 2019 when he pulled out a gun and fired at a passerby who witnessed him dragging his girlfriend through a parking lot.

Months later, after getting into an accident, Rahimi repeatedly shot at the other driver, court records show. A year later, he threatened another woman with a gun and was charged with aggravated assault. In 2021, he fired several times into the air after a friend’s credit card was declined at a burger joint near Fort Worth, Texas.”

And Rahimi never went to jail for these incidents.

Quote #2

“Federal law also generally prohibits people from possessing firearms if they have been convicted of a felony, are in the country illegally or have been dishonorably discharged from the military. In 2021, the Supreme Court let stand a series of lower court rulings that prohibited people convicted of driving under the influence, making false statements on tax returns and selling counterfeit cassette tapes from owning a gun.”

So you lose your 2nd Amendment guaranteed right to keep and bear arms if you: (1) have a DUI, (2) lie to the IRS or (3) sell counterfeit cassete tapes.


I bet they can still vote, though. :face_with_diagonal_mouth:


They can, but if they are like the majority of the electorate, they probably don’t vote.

This case for abuser’s gun rights shows that the law is a failure. The second, more important questions are: "Why wasn’t he charged with felonies after any one of the prior major crimes committed while in possession of a firearm? Who is responsible for failure to prosecute these previous crimes which might taken a criminal off the streets?

1 Like

This guy obviously shouldn’t have had access to a firearm for many other reasons aside from the restraining order.

Seems that this case was intentionally pushed through the lower courts by anti self defense folks looking to force the Supreme Court into an anti self defense ruling due to the clearly dangerous defendant.

Why isn’t this man in jail and banned from firearm ownership for his many other crimes? The restraining order should be irrelevant in this particular case.

You create a situation where someone is allowed, deliberately, to do something wildly dangerous and inappropriate. You don’t charge them, you don’t lock them up, You just sit back and wait for the inevitable event that any reasonable person could see is only a matter of time.

Then, once the criminal with a history of gun related crimes, commits yet another crime with a gun, because you refused to lock him up for his previous crimes, Then you use his crime to paint all gun owners as bad, guns as bad, and use his behavior as an example of why your justified in ignoring the constitution, and taking guns from the citizens.

The next thing you know, we will have law enforcement inviting people into the capitol so they can arrest them for being trespassing insurrectionists.